Baron might be twice the gas but it was never twice the maintenance. Jet is way less maintenance than either a bonanza or baron btw.

Mike

Sold.

The E500 is awesome in theory, but the oddball avionics and questionable continued existence of the company is very scary.

SF50 is all Garmin. It will be supported for a long time to come and Cirrus isn't going anywhere. Those are all big advantages to the SF50

I think JC answered that with a Pilatus. He is our "step-up" poster child. He researched all this hard and no one wanted a "jet" more than JC to avoid the clown plane image.

When I was looking a few years ago, the Cessna salesman discussed stepping up from the TTx and the 206 we were discussing. And for Cessna the jump was into a jet, and how the a SETP was not enough airplane.

Tim

Let's make it totally clear the eclipse doesn't really burn 50gph! Yes, maybe at 410 but you averaged 70 getting up there. It's very efficient for a jet but down low it's 100gph. on short trips you will get stuck down low. The cirrus jet fuel burn is probably real close to the eclipse going slower and lower. That's not for me but I get the appeal.

I think this cirrus jet has a lot going for it and will sell like hot cakes.

Eclipses are cool too.

Free county so fly whatever you enjoy.

The laws of physics is not some sort of mental delusion by jet makers.

Thick air is slower airplanes is more fuel burn. Period. Any jet engine limited to low altitudes will burn more fuel no matter how "optimized" you think you can make it. Your low altitude optimizations are just a few percentage points, not enough to matter compared to the thick air.


There is definitely a market for owner flown cheap jets. The problem is actually making a cheap jet profitably.

Just because there is demand doesn't mean there will be supply.


Twin jet is no more workload than single. That's piston think again.

I guarantee if an engine fails, the twin is WAY LESS pilot work load!


They need to go slow, low, short, carry little, and burn more fuel? Add an engine and you improve EVERYTHING about the airplane except the false perceptions of pilots who know only piston think.


Economics will tell the story, and the economics of a SEJ stink.

Mike C.

JC just attempting to banter me over "rich people". He has no idea how rich I am, have been or will be. It doesn't have to mean "love of money" to be rich: big difference. But then what I say infuriates some that they really can't hear my real message.

"Fad" wasn't the word; "pipe dream" was the word I was looking for. Even people that aren't engineers and want a jet want to go higher than FL25; and a 400# useful load? Buy a premier. and Mike goes a lot further than just being a practical engineer; he recognizes the ego trap of someone flying this thing. I know I don't fly with people on those gigs either.

IIRC the cirrus jet was first introduced by the original owners as somewhat of a marketing pitch to raise revenue to rescue the company. That's how it struck me anyway and I could certainly be FOS on that.
Even the mustang wouldn't suit my mission.and to me, that why it's a flop and why Cessna tried to curtail damages with another flop, so far, the M2. Then it's not that far away you're looking at what Dave S is, then say you want to go across continent with 6 on board: you need 2 pilots. Or buy the Pilatus.at least maybe, maybe, going east.

Hey, I wish them the best, I'm not betting against them, but I ain't putting dollar on them either.

Similar mob scene at Eclipse tents when they were "selling".

The mob scene is "cheap jet", not "jet single". Sell a twin jet for the same price, you get the same mob, plus some corporate and charter buyers, so the plane can actually be cheaper due to higher volume.


This is one of the most dangerous ideas in this thread, the idea that having only one engine allows the pilot to be somehow lesser and to take less training. In fact, just the OPPOSITE is true.

99% of flying a jet has nothing to do with 1 engine or 2. If the SF50 gets pilots who fear they can't handle two jet engines, they have no business flying a jet of any kind. They are going to find smoking holes in the ground just like so many did with SR20/22s.

If Cirrus is smart, they will do what Eclipse did and require training through regulatory means. Then all the buyers ARE going to spend 2-3 weeks in training and they ARE going to require recurrent training once a year. So these 50 hour/year pilots have to step up to the training plate and do it. If Cirrus is deluding buyers that all they need is an IR, then that is fraud.

Mike C.

The Jet's weakness' are it's strengths here. It stays slow and low. It will get treated like a Meridian by ATC and not have to mix it up with the big boys. Systems will presumably be simple and approach speeds low. It's probably not going to be much more complex to operate in the system than a Turbo22.

The laws of physics is not some sort of mental delusion by jet makers.

Thick air is slower airplanes is more fuel burn. Period. Any jet engine limited to low altitudes will burn more fuel no matter how "optimized" you think you can make it. Your low altitude optimizations are just a few percentage points, not enough to matter compared to the thick air.


There is definitely a market for owner flown cheap jets. The problem is actually making a cheap jet profitably.

Just because there is demand doesn't mean there will be supply.


Twin jet is no more workload than single. That's piston think again.

I guarantee if an engine fails, the twin is WAY LESS pilot work load!


They need to go slow, low, short, carry little, and burn more fuel? Add an engine and you improve EVERYTHING about the airplane except the false perceptions of pilots who know only piston think.


Economics will tell the story, and the economics of a SEJ stink.

Mike C.

The speed of the SF50 kills me. 300knts is only seen with WOT @ Fl250. If you acctually want to go 1000miles with your 400Lb payload you must slow down to 210knots @ Fl250.

210 knots.

Throw in a 30knot headwind and you might as well be in a Bo. A meridian would be faster.

My take on his argument is primarily fuel efficiency. That jets are not suited for a FL250 limitation. I don't see that problem for the SETP's. They are all certified more or less to where METP's go. Yes you have oddballs like the Avanti and Cheyenne 400 (TU95?) that get into jet territory. But most turboprops run well in the 20s - just like the PC12, TBM and Meridian.

There are zero civilian jets that run in the 20's on purpose.

No way it does that. You feel into the "cruise speed/fuel trap". The turbine will burn a lot more fuel at low altitude and go a lot slower, so you have to account for that in each trip. Turbines are like that, and that is a strong difference from pistons.

A proper model of the SF50 would be 110 gallons and 240 nm first hour, then 70 GPH and 300 nm each additional. This makes your 600 nm flight take 2.2 hours, burn 194 gallons. You have less than 1 hour of fuel left at low altitude, and your cabin load is down to full fuel payload, 400 pounds.


Using realistic planning numbers, $970 in fuel, $440/hour fixed, $1410/hour, carrying only 2 people, no bags.

You can fly a CJ for that and have money left over flying an EA500.


Agree on both counts.

The EA500 would be a roaring success if it first came with steam gauge instruments that owners could now swap out for G600s. Instead, they killed themselves with this super proprietary avionics suite. The irony is that they claimed the avionics make the EA500 "future proof". I agree, it is well protected against a future.

So if I could get the airframe of the EA500 plus the Garmin avionics plus a sane company, then you have a winner and it has nothing to do with being an SEJ.

Mike C.

If true ... ouch. But in that scenario you'd go WOT and make a gas stop.

Similar mob scene at Eclipse tents when they were "selling".

The mob scene is "cheap jet", not "jet single". Sell a twin jet for the same price, you get the same mob, plus some corporate and charter buyers, so the plane can actually be cheaper due to higher volume.


This is one of the most dangerous ideas in this thread, the idea that having only one engine allows the pilot to be somehow lesser and to take less training. In fact, just the OPPOSITE is true.

99% of flying a jet has nothing to do with 1 engine or 2. If the SF50 gets pilots who fear they can't handle two jet engines, they have no business flying a jet of any kind. They are going to find smoking holes in the ground just like so many did with SR20/22s.

If Cirrus is smart, they will do what Eclipse did and require training through regulatory means. Then all the buyers ARE going to spend 2-3 weeks in training and they ARE going to require recurrent training once a year. So these 50 hour/year pilots have to step up to the training plate and do it. If Cirrus is deluding buyers that all they need is an IR, then that is fraud.

Mike C.